Ain't no Superman

[mousme]

Even Mother Theresa limited herself to Calcutta, for the most part.

The human mind can't encompass more than about 100 close friends and family. Beyond that, it's physically incapable of caring just that much. This is a good thing, a survival mechanism. Can you imagine feeling the same devastating sorrow as losing a parent or a sibling or a child or your best childhood friend every time someone out there dies?

I would go insane. More insane than I am now. It would make life unbearable. We'd constantly be in emotional agony. Who wants to live like that?

I believe in the interconnectedness of beings. I don't believe one person inherently has more value than another. I also believe that some people have more value to me than others. I love my parents, but the teller at the bank will only get a civilized nod and a "Good morning" at best. The guy I pass on the street will never be acknowledged 99% of the time. My friends are more important to me than my coworkers.

Would I like to save the world? Sure. But I can't. I also can't care about the world in its entirety. I can care about my small corner of the world. I can strive to try and make my friends and family happy and safe, and to make my corner of the world a pleasant place for them to live.

My friends and family have friends and family of their own. My circle and their circle are not the same, and so I trust them to take care of those they love whom I don't know. In turn, those people must take care of their own. Eventually, there must be a trickle-down effect.

This isn't a perfect system. There's no such thing as a perfect system. It's just the best and only thing I know how to do. I am not a revolutionary, nor am I an activist. I lose myself in crowds, and I don't have the voice or the oratory skills for speeches. I am not brilliant. I will never write anything that will irrevocably change the way people think.

The best I can hope for is that someone someday will look at me and say: "You know, I think she's onto something. Maybe I'll try that too."

Comments

[curtana.livejournal.com]

Phnee, I really think we are mostly on the same page here. I fully agree with nearly everything you've written here. I just think you're over-interpreting what I said to mean that we should love and care for everyone equally, or that it's wrong to care more for our friends and family than for strangers. What I was saying was that I think there is great potential danger in cutting ourselves off from the larger social network of acquaintances and neighbours - particularly since many of the people I, for one, count as friends and family are physically distant from me, I think it's worth my while to cultivate relationships closer to home as well, even if I don't feel the same kind of love and affection for, say, my neighbour downstairs as I do for my friends. I think that one of the most important values of our society, and one of the things most worth striving to preserve, is the idea that all humans are, at a fundamental level, the same, and therefore worthy of empathy. Obviously you can work to preserve such values wherever you are, city or country - and I'm certain that you would do so.

[bodhifox.livejournal.com]

I read the link to some post-peak guy on curtana's page. I read some of the people posting responses, and I just shake my head. I agree with you, it is too much to conceptualize caring for more than a certain circle of people. Who could care, who could care for 99.9999% of the rest of the population? Why should you?

Don't let any of that make you feel bad for doing what you feel you want to do no matter what motivation. Someone in there, maybe in the link page and not a responder knocked the back-to-the-land movement. That really pissed me off. Maybe what you want to do is healthier than remaining in a city. For the love of god, we'll all be dead if anything ever shakes out anyway, why argue about it? I'll tell you why I do. Because of my children, and my friend's children.

I really think it boils down to people in a city thinking they have the best model for living and if anyone abandons that lifestyle, they are judging those who stay behind.

[fearsclave.livejournal.com]

I think the question to ask is why you should care about 99.9999% of the population when they would, when the chips are down, cheerfully slit your throat without a moment's hesitation if it were to their advantage.

Also, a certain amount of recoiling from the implications of a worst-case scenario might be involved.

[bodhifox.livejournal.com]

I didn't want to go so far as the throat thing. But, yeah.

Living in a city, cooperating with all the citizens. The guy in curtana's post mentioned an optimal city size of 1,000,000. He used Rome as an example. Anybody have an idea of the quality of life in Rome for the average inhabitant? Sure they had running water and central heating and the like. Also slaves, to run things.

I'm wondering how people whose only skills are information based would make their way?

[fearsclave.livejournal.com]

I only skimmed the article urbanhomestead linked to, so I can't really comment in-depth, but frankly, I don't like urban living now, with all our modern conveiences. Subtract reliable electricity and HVAC, spotty municipal services, a notable dearth of entertainment options, and lots and lots of unemployed tertiary sector workers?

They call that a favela in Latin America, and frankly, I'd like living in one even less. I'll stick to the sticks unless forced out of them, thank you very much.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

I'd like to have more faith in humanity than that. I honestly don't think that the vast majority of people would resort to violence, as you say, "if it were to their advantage."

I do think there are many people out there who are violent and opportunistic, but they are not the majority.

I don't think the majority of people would hesitate to put their welfare above mine. From there to outright physical violence is a stretch. If you look at huge natural disasters, like the recent devastation of Hurricane Katrina, you'll note that the vast majority did *not* engage in violence. They were lost, disoriented, unable to do much other than fend for themselves and their close families, but there was relatively little violence involved for a disaster on that scale.

I do think you're being pessimistic about human nature on the whole. Sure, disaster brings out the worst in us, but it also brings out the best in us. :)

[mousme.livejournal.com]

It's certainly more than likely I was over-interpreting what you said. It was late, I was tired, and misinterpretations on LJ are very easy.

I think, for the most part, that we're on the same page about a lot of things. I, too, have many friends and family at a great physical remove from me (they range from the Western US all the way to Australia in some cases), and I have always loved having so large an extended family.

I also cultivate local relationships, even if I'm never going to be bosom buddies with my neighbour Pat who feeds the neighbourhood cats. I'm not likely to club Pat over the head to get her cat food should TEOTWAWKI occur. :P

The only way I can see to preserve the values of which we're both speaking is how I've outlined it: to live those values as fully as I can with friends and family and to hope the effect spreads.

[fearsclave.livejournal.com]

I think the reason things stayed relatively polite in New Orleans was the fact that there was a rescue effort, albeit a slow and mismanaged one, and that people knew it was coming. If the situation in New Orleans had had three weeks of no support whatsoever, things would have gone beyond ugly...

How about Sarajevo? That one's not a great example, because an organized "them" trying to kill "us" with modern military hardware also tends to foster a sense of community solidarity.

Mogadishu, perhaps? Baghdad?

I guess we're lucky, in that we don't have any examples of a modern Western city being thrown into complete anarchy,

[mousme.livejournal.com]

My skills are mostly information based, as it happens. I think that, were I left on my own now, I would be toast.

This is why, for me, it's very important to build communities wherever I go. If I need a skill, I will need someone to teach it to me.

While there are so many conflicting theories about peak oil, I have no idea what the city will be like after that. I have a feeling it'll resemble the Depression era in more ways than one. While I don't especially want to be an urbanite under those circumstances, if I happen to be living in the city when it happens, well, I'll just suck it up and deal as best I can. No other way about it.

[rehenazelreyhan.livejournal.com]

You know, I think you're onto something. I think I'll try that, too.

I

LOVE

THIS

ENTRY.

[fearsclave.livejournal.com]

Phnee rocks massively.

[bodhifox.livejournal.com]

Sarajevo is my favorite example. We are lucky. Luck only holds so long. Maybe it will hold until after we are all dead. Have you read Parable of the Sower? Octavia Butler is the author. Interesting.

[bodhifox.livejournal.com]

Even if you cut out all the PO talk, having a useful and tradeable skill can help you do better in any economic downturn, for example. If my job gets outsourced like the last few have, I better have some things I can make or do that are in demand. That works wherever you are.

The false dilemma

[aislingtheach.livejournal.com]

Hi Phnee,

I must say I see a slight problem with some part of your post. If I understand it well, you are exposing a false dilemma:

Saving the *whole* world (and its concomitant emotional charge)
'Can you imagine feeling the same devastating sorrow as losing a parent or a sibling or a child or your best childhood friend every time someone out there dies?'

VS

Keeping to your circle of friends, hoping for a trickle down effect.

Well, there are in fact more options. You could, for instance,

A) care for the *whole world* and be a 'worldwide' activist without feeling torn and overwhelmed every time shit happens.

B) care for the *whole world*, be a nationwide activist without feeling torn and overwhelmed every time shit happens.

C) care for the *whole world*, be a local activist without feeling torn and overwhelmed every time shit happens.

D) care for a *selective part of the world* (which can be of a widely varying scale), be an activist for that selective part without feeling torn and overwhelmed every time shit happens in that selective part.

E) care for a *selective part of the world*, be an activist for that selective part, and feel torn almost every time something happens there.

F and al.) And I guess you could have a whole array of differing possibilities.

While I also believe sharing thoughts and experiences with friends is *essential* to social change, it is far from being enough. Workers didn't obtain better working conditions by sharing with friends and hoping for a trickle down effect that would find its way to the ruling classes and factory managers. Women didn't make gains through strict trickle down effects and sharing of ideas, Blacks and colonized peoples around the globe would have gone nowhere if they only kept to sharing ideas and values among friends, hoping something magically happens outside their sphere so that they'd get the equality they've deserved for so long.

I'm not saying everybody *must* get involved at all costs. There are circumstances when it is hardly feasable. But I must admit I feel sad to see, in our societies, some general apathy or lack of faith in one's potential to bring some good to the world outside a circle of friends - especially since most of us are in a privileged position. We have little to loose or risk from being socially involved in various causes, whereas some brave folks who live in dictatorships or quasi-dictatorships face serious threats when they speak up. I feel we're spoiling our opportunities of giving precious help for those in need.

I'm sometimes under the impression that a sizeable portion of society is comfortably waiting for some Jesus-like or Gandhi-like savior to come and singlehandedly save the day - or just for others to take care of the *difficult* jobs and make the gains we'll all benefit from in the end. In the meantime, they can keep watching American Idol, spend away almost all of their free time in escapist gaming or leisure while complaining about social ills. Thing is social change can only be brought about with *collective* action. Through a joining of efforts.

Anyhoo. It's a lengthy and - I'm aware - very sensitive topic, which I'd prefer to broach in some further post.

*adds this up to the to do list*

By the way, thanks a lot for coming to the defense, it was greatly appreciated!!!

[grnladybug.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed this post....

Re: The false dilemma

[mousme.livejournal.com]

I was very happy to come to the defense. I had a great time, and the topic was extremely interesting. Not to mention that the party afterward was a lot of fun too. :)


As for the rest, I'm not saying those things aren't possible. I am well aware that there are many many people who are activists at various levels, and I admire them a great deal for their passion, involvement and commitment. This is not, nor has it ever been, an either/or situation.

What I was trying to get across is that, just because I am not an activist, it doesn't mean I'm not trying to do my part in my own small way. It doesn't make me a bad person, or an unfeeling person.

I get asked: "But don't you care about the world?" And my answer to that is, of course I care. But I don't care the same way that I do about my friends and family. That kind of answer generally gets me horrified stares, as though I had just openly advocated genocide and the mass killing of babies, which is obviously not the case.

There is a difference between not being an activist, and actively wishing harm on others. There's a middle ground.

To pick up on your examples... okay, let's pick one. Let's talk about the equality of women. I could be a worldwide activist, which many are, or a nationwide activist, or even a local activist.

I don't particularly have the expertise to be an activist (nothing annoys me more than when someone embraces a cause without any knowledge of what it's about). I'm none of these things, but I *do* champion the cause of women where and when I can, usually in the workplace. I have argued against many preconceived notions, and I have written letters on occasion, to local governments. Mostly I try to quietly advance the cause by example, by talking to people and trying to change their minds through reason. I'd like to think that, in some cases, it's better to talk to people than to wave a placard in their faces.

There are times when placards are absolutely necessary. Demonstration, protest and revolt all have their place in social change. But they are not the only vectors of change. That's all I'm saying.

[mousme.livejournal.com]

Thank you. It was sort of written in the heat of the moment, and so aislingtheach rightly pointed out that it seems as though I'm making an artificial dichotomy, which I'm not.

I was simply pointing out that, just because I'm not an activist, that doesn't mean I actively wish harm on the rest of the world.

Re: The false dilemma

[aislingtheach.livejournal.com]

I think what made me react is that I see some general feeling of contentment with keeping to ourselves and to our own little affinity group while disengaging from the rest of society.

Granted, there are many ways to do so: Some just keep to themselves, and burp their evenings away sitting in front of the TV. Others grasp the opportunity, here and there, to raise the awareness of their friends and colleagues regarding this or that issue. And know you're of the later sort, and of course this is much, much better than the first stance ;)

Problem is, in order to bring changes to our environment, even small ones, it is of the utmost importance to make the deliberate step of learning about people from the "outside world". For example, if I keep to myself, my small circle of friends, and my local newspaper, there is little I will learn about the plight of immigrants. Ergo, there will be little I will be able to do in order to sensitize close friends to their situation and instill solidarity. I *might* think I'm all open-minded and constructive, but I most probably will make blunders in the process.

Racism, homophobia and the whole gamut of prejudice is not only the result of mean acts of violence. It is also the result of keeping to ourselves, of not doing this step of learning about other peoples' conditions through direct contact.

Of course, this is a very delicate subject to thread on. I don't want to culpabilize people (not good) and yet we need *more* people to go out of their bubbles and do something about the world. I feel, in this place and time, that it is very urgent.

Re: The false dilemma

[aislingtheach.livejournal.com]

En fait, je te suggère cette petite entrée de blog, je partage une bonne partie des positions de son auteur, Joss Whedon ;) oui, oui, une personnalité geek ;)

http://whedonesque.com/comments/13271

Généralement, on a tendance à accorder plus de crédibilité aux personnes qui sont plus populaires.

Re: The false dilemma

[mousme.livejournal.com]

Merci, je l'avais déjà lu. :)